tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post4282432477829923395..comments2024-01-05T20:26:44.857-08:00Comments on Thinking Again: Poetry Pundits Speak: The State of Poetry Book Reviewsmark wallacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10047292022080114501noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-51624733693204940102009-05-18T15:35:00.000-07:002009-05-18T15:35:00.000-07:00When I read a poetry review, I do so to learn some...<I>When</I> I read a poetry review, I do so to learn something about a poet's art and craft. Therefore, I appreciate quotes. I also do so to learn some facts about a poet.<br /><br />Because of what I'm interested in knowing, I prefer interviews to reviews.brian (baj) salcherthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649691450577647656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-50515935349970769672009-05-15T19:18:00.000-07:002009-05-15T19:18:00.000-07:00Matt: you SUCK. Don't insult Michigan with your cu...Matt: you SUCK. Don't insult Michigan with your cute "post avant" jokes (and haircuts). People have SWEATED there and worked with their HANDS and you offer giggly NOODLES, Matt, NOODLES. You SUCK. Go pump some iron or some GAS go get a JOB in the post-Michigan ECONOMY. Fruit.<br /><br />------------BAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-32824245968046524772009-05-13T11:08:00.000-07:002009-05-13T11:08:00.000-07:00after reading this comment stream i jumped out a w...after reading this comment stream i jumped out a window and died.<br /><br />(heaven, it turns out, looks exactly like michigan, for anyone who's wondering.)Matt Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00791420971869885860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-87288183719033001322009-05-07T15:19:00.000-07:002009-05-07T15:19:00.000-07:00Despite the occasional biting comment, I am glad t...Despite the occasional biting comment, I am glad that Mayday Issue 1 has caused such lively discussion. It makes me even more proud than I already was to be a part of it.<br /><br />Thank you all, especially Mark for posting this blog in the first place.Okla Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13284320073912488283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-57828352610319383572009-05-07T09:48:00.000-07:002009-05-07T09:48:00.000-07:00I apologize for the misspelling of Rodney's name. ...I apologize for the misspelling of Rodney's name. I am quite familiar with him and know his work a bit. <br /><br />I'm totally bemused by "Janet"'s claim that I "viciously" attacked Rodney. My initial comment probably sounded too jauntily dismissive, and I apologize to Rodney, if so. I expanded on that first comment later, offering some thoughts on what I saw as problematic in Rodney's argument about college syllabi, and such-- which I proposed might be seen as (innocently) symptomatic of a somewhat schizophrenic split in Flarf's ongoing "self-fashioning." <br /><br />In any case, my comments were directed not at Rodney as a person (I didn't say a single mean thing about him!), about whom I've heard nice things, but at something specific he wrote. The comments that followed here from others, on the other hand, were spiteful, ad hominem, and shallow-- more revealing of an underlying insecurity and defensiveness, perhaps, than their authors likely realize.<br /><br />But this is all part of the mix, too. <br /><br />Rodney, by the way, while we're here: I'm probably going to be expanding the Mayday forum into a book collection of short essays on "the sociology and politics of poetry reviewing." Some prominent folks have expressed interest in adding their views. Would you like to contribute a brief essay on reviewing? Let me know.<br /><br />And the invitation is still open to the other Flarf poets I'd initially invited!<br /><br />OK, a good weekend to all,<br /><br />KentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-86336020736495424782009-05-07T09:39:00.000-07:002009-05-07T09:39:00.000-07:00I keep thinking of Tom Orange's stunning point - (...I keep thinking of Tom Orange's stunning point - (my paraphrasing it) *how all this might all be the late night shivering of a collapsing national poetry* <br /><br />Floor boards popping up, nails unclasping, ceiling chipping... <br /><br />What matter "calm" or "principled" or "snarky" or "angry" tuxedos at this Grandest of Parties? <br /><br />You know...<br /><br />How to *think through* a larger "concept" - something perhaps along the lines of a Greater Americas - <br /><br />So that a reading of things - including many of the responses to Dark Bouquets - so that they become [read-to-become] *extensions* - rather than more (symptomatic) accretions of (what they used to call) "the margins" <br /><br />Re: National Reclamation Cleanup Banter <br /><br />Re: Toxic Waste <br /><br />masks, goggles, seep-proof pantsuits, etc -<br /><br />Re: Cat Walking - Fashion - "controversy" <br /><br />- R. ToscanoUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01886019630500536933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-65320546503599157242009-05-07T08:02:00.000-07:002009-05-07T08:02:00.000-07:00Mark, suggest you moderate spam & flames on yo...Mark, suggest you moderate spam & flames on your blog, if you want dialogue here.Henry Gouldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06763188178644726622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-88158075241980065432009-05-07T07:26:00.000-07:002009-05-07T07:26:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01886019630500536933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-51184672473423936292009-05-07T06:24:00.000-07:002009-05-07T06:24:00.000-07:00Morning, everyone. Just waking up here in southern...Morning, everyone. Just waking up here in southern California.<br /><br />Michael Robbins, you should be able to delete yourself any post that you put up, I believe, if you signed into blogger. If not: these posts sometimes come up/go up in a less than perfect order, so if you'll identify a bit more exactly which post you mean, I'll be glad to take it down for you.mark wallacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10047292022080114501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-84451903372782971962009-05-07T06:17:00.000-07:002009-05-07T06:17:00.000-07:00“Sycophancy.” Well, it seems a culture of fearles...“Sycophancy.” Well, it seems a culture of fearlessly critical reviews, and a similar kind of poetry for that matter, might avoid all that. If you have it in your head to sabotage your career, you’re beginning on the right track. <br /><br />“Don’t we have any ambition for real dialog? How would a bunch of 500 word negative reviews begin to address anything?” They could. And even better when it’s longer—which seems to be what the author of this quote is suggesting, see previously. <br /><br />Analysis. Deciding on this, proffering that, such could be the outcome of honest critiques and reviews. One has problems with a mystical torture policy; one has problems with an institution of Jorie Graham; with Colorado Prizes; with the whole contest model; with the capitalization of Poetry; with validations and pleasant tea under embossed slips of paper, very beautifully designed and framed; with erect pinky fingers; with the lethal potencies of institutional publishing machineries producing texts highly palatable to people who have everything to lose. With bitchers and bitches who want only to take part. One has problems with shams and sham tongues.<br /><br />Jared S.jschicklinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16828984070137817010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-34519047408677906502009-05-06T22:56:00.000-07:002009-05-06T22:56:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Michael Robbinsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-82516344308070134022009-05-06T22:29:00.000-07:002009-05-06T22:29:00.000-07:00I'm late to this discussion, sorry. Kent's vicious...I'm late to this discussion, sorry. Kent's vicious attack of Rodney Koeneke (whose name Kent can't be bothered to spell correctly) is, alas, fairly typical. Rodney is one of the sweetest most generous poets out there, and it's painful to watch Kent's totally uncalled for, vicious attack on him ... though par for Kent's course, which is to attack anyone<br /> who doesn't haul his water for him.<br /><br />Also sad to see Robbins caught in the middle, though he has of course a well-earned reputation for attacking anything that moves online.<br /><br />Kent's notion of negative reviews totally ignores the real problem, already diagnosed here: reviews are not given space enough to be in depth, and therefor of any real value to a "general reader." <br /><br />Kent likes and supports negative reviews because he is a negative person, who has made a lot of enemies in the poetry world and so wants the license to attack. Which he does anyway (as evidenced by his attack on Rodney Koeneke, whose work is so far out of Kent's league that it's laughable. Koeneke has readers, lots of them, who are enthusiastic. Kent has apologists. <br /><br />Michael Robbins has obviously not read Koeneke's work. Koeneke is not a real person to him , nor a real poet, which is the only reason why he might apologize for Kent's shitty dismissal.<br /><br />JanetAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-62393415394692509712009-05-06T22:26:00.000-07:002009-05-06T22:26:00.000-07:00“Sycophancy.” Well, it seems a culture of fearles...“Sycophancy.” Well, it seems a culture of fearlessly critical reviews, and a similar kind of poetry for that matter, might avoid all that. If you have it in your head to sabotage your career, you’re beginning on the right track. <br /><br />“Don’t we have any ambition for real dialog? How would a bunch of 500 word negative reviews begin to address anything?” They could. And even better when it’s longer—which seems to be what the author of this quote is suggesting, see below. <br /><br />Analysis. Deciding on this, proffering that, such could be the outcome of honest critiques and reviews. One has problems with a mystical torture policy; one has problems with an institution of Jorie Graham; with Colorado Prizes; with the whole contest model; with the capitalization of Poetry; with validations and pleasant tea under embossed slips of paper, very beautifully designed and framed; with erect pinky fingers; with the lethal potencies of institutional publishing machineries producing texts highly palatable to people who have everything to lose. With bitchers and bitches who want only to take part. One has problems with shams and sham tongues.jschicklinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16828984070137817010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-15349936657675766182009-05-06T21:24:00.000-07:002009-05-06T21:24:00.000-07:00I enjoy writing reviews. It's good to keep one's c...I enjoy writing reviews. It's good to keep one's critical hand in. It's practice. I occasionally write what I call appreciations, too, which are not so much reviews as personal musings on what a particular writer or artist has meant to me, or done for me, or inspired me to do.<br /><br />I don't think a good review has to be by definition either negative OR positive. I think by definition a good review has to be an honest assessment: pointing out what works, and pointing out what doesn't work. <br /><br />I disagree with the idea some seem to believe, that reviewing is a purely subjective art, or that disagreement is inherently toxic. I think disagreement can be a road to improving the writing—and reviewing should always be about the writing.<br /><br />I DO think that ad hominem attacks always say more about the mental state of the attacker than they do about the target, be the target a book or a person. I think most people have no idea quite how MUCH they reveal about themselves when they resort to snark rather than reason.<br /><br />I do reviews periodically, just to keep my hand in. If I have nothing new at hand to review, I might review a long-published book, seen with fresh eyes, now.<br /><br />Again, honest assessment is what I think about. Even books that I thoroughly love and recommend to others, I am willing to point out their flaws. But not only their flaws, their virtues as well.<br /><br />This isn't a middle-of-the-road "fair and balanced" position which requires one to always say something nice if you're going to say anything at all. If a book is just bad, I feel free to say so. (I've panned pop music CDs for the reason that, even though the band was young, their music was so clearly derivative that one cannot get their influences out of one's mind.) If a book is mostly bad, or mostly good, or mostly dead, I feel free to say so. Likewise, if I write what amounts to a rave review, I don't hesitate to say what might still have been done better. <br /><br />And having been a book designer, typographer, and so forth, I feel free to comment on a book's design and presentation. I've noted most reviewers don't do that: rather, they seem to act as if such details were not worth mentioning, although in fact they DO affect one's experience in reading, and therefore one's response. <br /><br />The truth is, it IS more fun to write a rave review which expresses one's enthusiasm for what one likes. But it can be as dishonest to do so as is a hatchet job, if one doesn't also step back and look at the book under review with a relatively cool eye, too.Art Durkeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07463180236975988432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-3896349361297767152009-05-06T19:14:00.000-07:002009-05-06T19:14:00.000-07:00Some discussion on nature of this comments string ...Some discussion on nature of this comments string over at Harriet blog...<br /><br />thanks to Rodney Koenecke and Stan Apps for thoughtful comments, though.<br /><br />KentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-28271482271838282192009-05-06T18:55:00.000-07:002009-05-06T18:55:00.000-07:00Colin,
I asked Kasey Mohammad and Jordan Davis an...Colin,<br /><br />I asked Kasey Mohammad and Jordan Davis and Ben Friedlander. I also asked Steve Evans and Jennifer Moxley (I know they aren't "flarfers," as you put it, but there are some "community affinities" there, I suppose.<br /><br />OK?<br /><br />KentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-24025880158603526412009-05-06T18:32:00.000-07:002009-05-06T18:32:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Michael Robbinsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-3518224861307089532009-05-06T18:21:00.000-07:002009-05-06T18:21:00.000-07:00Mark,
I, too, am very interested to hear other pe...Mark,<br /><br />I, too, am very interested to hear other perspectives, of course!<br /><br />James,<br /><br />Thanks for the clarification.<br /><br />You are of course under no obligation to respond to this inquiry, but I wonder: what bored you about the forum, and, more importantly, what could have made the forum more interesting? Or: if Mark nailed it, isn't that really rewarding reading? Even if you've got to slog through a number of other responses, to find something that really gets at/gets into something seems worth it to me (it certainly seems to echo my own experience of reading poetry: lots that doesn't grab me, but something here and there that does...).Michael Theunehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08121953357805380434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-86133500081907300162009-05-06T18:05:00.000-07:002009-05-06T18:05:00.000-07:00Kent, who were the flarfers you asked who didn't r...Kent, who were the flarfers you asked who didn't respond?<br /><br />I know I asked this before, but it looks sort of bad that you can't supply an answer to this, and I'd like to give you an opportunity to prove that you're not just an out and out liar.<br /><br />ColinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-74800960136007726222009-05-06T17:56:00.000-07:002009-05-06T17:56:00.000-07:00Michael Theune,
Kent's circle wasn't a reference ...Michael Theune,<br /><br />Kent's circle wasn't a reference to the roundtable.<br /><br />As for comments about the roundtable, basically, it bored the holy crap out of me, although I thought Mark Wallace pretty much nailed things. <br /><br />JamesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-87611466260290971512009-05-06T17:51:00.000-07:002009-05-06T17:51:00.000-07:00Hello Michael Theune (and to all the other Michael...Hello Michael Theune (and to all the other Michaels here, none of whom I know):<br /><br />I don't think the reference to Kent's "circle" is meant as a reference to the review forum itself. In any case, like you, I feel that this conversation would be better served by a discussion of the various responses in the Mayday issue, as some blog responses here have done, but also, like some of the other comments here, by expressing other points of view on the question of reviewing. Part of the point of my blog post was to encourage other people not included in the forum to speak up regarding their perspectives on reviews, and some of the comments here have done that--thanks to those of you who have.<br /><br />And thanks to the rest of you as well--all comments are welcome here as long as they're signed, and as long as no one voice tries to take over entirely.<br /><br />So much for my blog public service announcement. As you were, everybody.mark wallacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10047292022080114501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-15252541262167309472009-05-06T17:44:00.000-07:002009-05-06T17:44:00.000-07:00>>Reviews, especially of poetry books, need ...>>Reviews, especially of poetry books, need space, which most magazines offline don't seem to have much of.<br /><br />The reviews in The Nation have been great. But the editors there provide an opportunity for the reviewer to stretch out and really cover the subject.<br /><br />Short hits are okay, but who are they serving? Seems like the issue isn't a need to "go negative" but to actually provide space for a response with actual substance.<<<br /><br />Couldn't agree more, David!! This is one of the main points I make in my own response on the forum...<br /><br />I'd note, additionally, that if you're looking for in-depth reviewing, another good (print) journal is Pleiades.Michael Theunehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08121953357805380434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-17734556285923167662009-05-06T17:33:00.000-07:002009-05-06T17:33:00.000-07:00Kent's "circle"?
Seems a strange way to label tho...Kent's "circle"?<br /><br />Seems a strange way to label those who participated in the forum. While I figure that for such an undertaking, one does need to enlist some reviewers one knows, I'm pretty sure Kent invited a number of reviewers to participate who he did not know personally (Mark Halliday comes to mind).<br /><br />And, anyway, to my reading, there's a lot of disagreement among the forum participants. Not everyone agrees with Kent's position, and almost no one agrees fully with Kent's proposal. In fact, I think I recall in my invitation to participate a request from Kent that the forum participants feel free to disagree strongly with him.<br /><br />I'd be interested in discussing some of the positions staked out by some of the respondents. Or, in pushing the conversation started on the forum: if a satellite economy of apocryphal reviewing is called for, how do we get this economy jumpstarted. Or, I'd be interested in hearing more from the critical voices in this comment stream regarding how the forum's responses seem so homogenous so as to seem like back-scratching, or, um, well, you know...Michael Theunehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08121953357805380434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-53020974967251281562009-05-06T17:31:00.000-07:002009-05-06T17:31:00.000-07:00Tom said:
>"Actually, what's legendar...Tom said:<br /><br />>"Actually, what's legendary, Kent, is your paranoia, self-aggrandizing hypocrisy, the fawning sychophancy of your followers, and the general irrelevance of your thought and poetry."<<br /><br /><br />Ouch!<br /><br />I mean, you gotta love it. <br /><br />:~)<br /><br />KentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3432817549859327458.post-20156381869149341222009-05-06T17:12:00.000-07:002009-05-06T17:12:00.000-07:00Michael Robbins wrote: "The meanspiritedness of yo...Michael Robbins wrote: "The meanspiritedness of you people defies comprehension, which is why I stay out of this bullshit now."<br /><br />This is the funniest thing I've read all day.<br /><br />Robbins being, of course, rather legendary for both his meanspiritedness and his everpresentness to dish out same.<br /><br />JamesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com